Even the superman lamp was labled "This is an electric product - not a toy! " , and still made the list. Apparently anything with batteries/buttons/paint/strings/ect are no-nos. Even toys clearly labeled for an appropriate age group are no no, because someones small child will pop up out of no where and choke on it.

Apparently your kid, according to them, is just supposed to sit around in a plastic bubble to keep them safe.

BTW, my kid had half of their worst toys on the list and I am proud to say she is still alive. She even had that Cabbage Patch kid that ate hair. Never happened here.

quote:WASHINGTON, DC–In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Wizco Toys of Montclair, NJ, recalled 245,000 Aqua Assault RoboFighters Monday after three dumb kids managed to kill themselves playing with the popular toy, ruining the fun for everybody else.

"The tragedy is inconceivable," Wizco president Alvin Cassidy said. "For years, countless children played with the Aqua Assault RoboFighter without incident. But then these three retards come along and somehow find a way to get themselves killed. So now we have to do a full recall and halt production on what was a really awesome toy. What a waste."

"My mom won't let me play with my RoboFighter because of those dumb kids who died," said 10-year-old Jeremy Daigle of Somerville, MA. "I used to set up army guys around the RoboFighter and have it run over them and conquer Earth for the Zardaxians. But now I'll never see it again, all because three stupid idiots had to go and wreck everything."

posted 13. December 200608:02 AM
The difference is marketing. Heely's are marketed as shoes. Skates and skateboards are marketed as sports equipment and shown in use with pads and helmets. Their labeling says to use said protective gear. Heely's labeling does not.
Posts: 1359 | From: Akron, Ohio | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote: Watch out for Toys With Strings Longer Than 6 Inches which could strangle small children.

I find this one a little ridiculous, my niece had this adorable little caterpillar pull toy, but the string on the thing was so short (seriously it was about 6 inches) that you couldn't pull the thing along the ground while you walked, even if you were as short as a toddler.

I understand that people want their children to be safe, but the key to me, seems to be that people need to WATCH their children when they're young and playing with toys, until the parent thinks they're old enough, responsible enough, and understand enough to use the toy properly, without supervision.

I understand not wanting toys for younger children to have small parts that can be ingested and chocked on, but to not want strings on pull toys? It just seems a bit much to me. If you use that route of thinking, basically ANYTHING can be considered dangerous. You can konk someone on the noggin pretty good with wooden blocks, or someone could trip and break their neck on a toy truck.

posted 13. December 200608:20 AM
That's why I only buy toys made by Mainway Toys. With Mainway Toys you never have to wonder if the toy you are buying is dangerous for children.

--------------------IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. CanuckistanPosts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Tzarina: The difference is marketing. Heely's are marketed as shoes. Skates and skateboards are marketed as sports equipment and shown in use with pads and helmets. Their labeling says to use said protective gear. Heely's labeling does not.

This is only an issue because at some point we've decided that it's the manufacturer's job to tell you the risks of their products that should already obvious in the intended use.

It's not like Heely's just randomly explode or burst into flames. Heely's are a product on which you skate, a form of motion that inherently carries with it a risk of injury due to falls, crashes, impacts, etc. So any danger in Heely's should already be obvious from their intended use. We know Heely's are for skating, we already know skating has a risk factor inherent in it, therefore what's the point of further pointing out that Heely's are dangerous? You already know "2" and "2" and its unreasonable to demand that some warning label tell you "4."

But I'm weird that way. I cannot for the life of me figure out why we demand warnings labels to warn of things which are inherent in the intended use of the product. For instance I think labels on alcoholic beverages stating that they might cause liver damage make sense, but labels telling you not to drive or operate heavy machinery don't. Why? Because you might not know from drinking a bottle of Scotch that it might hurt your liver. But since the entire point of alcohol is inebriation, i.e. a reduced or altered mental and physical state, it shouldn't have to be spelled out for you that it might make certain activities more dangerous.

There's a concept in legality called the "Reasonable Man" which states that its impossible to codify into legality every possible way in which a person might react to events, therefore it is necessary to assume a certain level of basic knowledge, reason, and judgment when making rules and laws.

I think we need to apply this here. Not "Could any possible person hurt themselves using this product in any way, including uses far removed from the intended use of this product, or in ways that should already be obvious from the intended use of this product?" but "Would a reasonable person run a risk of injuring themselves beyond what could reasonable expected from the use of this product or in ways that shouldn't be obvious from its intended use?"

On personal responsibility we need to move back towards "Reasonable Man" and away from "Lowest Common Denominator."

A product isn't faulty or dangerous because some idiot some where some way to hurt themselves with it.

quote:Originally posted by Troodon: Admittedly, those sneakers with the wheels on them do look like a good way to break one's head open.

Good point, but anyone who has children will tell you that plain old sneakers also pose a risk, as kids are wont to do things such as jump off stairs, climb on tables, etc.

Just this morning, my two-year-old daughter was so excited that my wife told her she could have yogurt for breakfast, she ran to and pulled open the refridgerator door, kept running toward it, and was knocked over by the door's recoil. It was hilarious. (sorry, Sweety)

I'm all for safety regulations for toys, especially given that a lot of inexpensive imports may not meet the same guidelines we have here in the states. I'm for media expositions of those things that are patently unsafe to make parents aware of hazards and to encourage the manufacturers to comply.

This has to be one of the most paranoid sites I have ever seen. TOYS THAT KILL! Big wheels are dangerous because motorists can't see kids low to the ground... well DUH you shouldn't be letting your child ride it where there are cars! The pull toy one is the most hilarious though, my kids loved their "pull along snoopy" and the chatterbox phone, the stuff from when I was a baby. I am guessing the only things suitable for kids at this point would maybe be large plastic balls (non-inflatable so they can't pop and smother), yielding enough to cause no pain even if hurled at high velocity, yet small enough not to block view of your child in the middle of a freeway at rush hour, that has the added benefit of not only being non-toxic if ingested but actually providing a significant percentage of the RDA. Included will be warnings about the hazards of throwing, rolling, or otherwise mishandling the ball. Colors will be gender-neutral and intellectually stimulating.

I'd have them play continuous streams of Mozart but I'm not sure how to do so without dangerous electronics.

--------------------"There is a race between mankind and the universe. Mankind is trying to build bigger, better, faster, and more foolproof machines. The universe is trying to build bigger, better, and faster fools. So far the universe is winning." -Albert EinsteinPosts: 1058 | From: Yakima, WA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |

And far be it from anyone to actually advise parents and help them be aware of dangers they might not have thought of.

I've never understood the hostility and insults aimed at consumer safety advocates. Yeah, we're all so supersmart and aware that WE don't need anyone to point out the dangers of a toy marketed to infants but not safe for them to actually have alone. Yea us. I'm supersmart enough to slow down on sharp curves too, but I don't rail against drivers education or cautionary road signs.
Posts: 96 | From: Attleboro, MA | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |

posted 13. December 200609:59 AM
Sorry, plastic balls aren't safe either. What if the kid tries to balance on them like the circus performers do? They're going to fall off and break their little heads open for sure.

Nope, the only safe gift for the wee ones is... air! Make sure not to can/bottle/otherwise encase it, though, as those could break and harm the child.
Posts: 698 | From: Washington | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |

And far be it from anyone to actually advise parents and help them be aware of dangers they might not have thought of.

I've never understood the hostility and insults aimed at consumer safety advocates. Yeah, we're all so supersmart and aware that WE don't need anyone to point out the dangers of a toy marketed to infants but not safe for them to actually have alone. Yea us. I'm supersmart enough to slow down on sharp curves too, but I don't rail against drivers education or cautionary road signs.

No one said anything about not educating parents about dangers. What people have an issue with is taking it too far. Yes, a toy with a string can be dangerous. Yes, a parent should be aware of that and be made aware of it if they don't already know. But they shouldn't avoid those toys completely, they just need to take precautions to be supervising the children.

To use your example. Driving too fast around sharp curves is dangerous. Everyone should be made aware of that if they aren't already. However, drivers should not completely avoid sharp curves, they just need to take precautions when they are driving around the curve.

--------------------Get used to his bad habits and decide whether you can put up with them...the rest of your life. 'Cause if you don't, then one day, you find yourself in the shed, sharpening the axe and idly wondering how thick the human skull really is.-ChickyBeePosts: 64 | From: Bristol, Rhode Island/Columbia, Maryland | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Aureal: Nope, the only safe gift for the wee ones is... air!

Are you kidding me? Air is more hazardous that dihydrogen monoxide. Withdrawl from DHMO will kill in days, air withdrawl will kill in minutes. In addition, air contains things like birds with sharp beaks and bees that sting.

--------------------IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. CanuckistanPosts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Cervus: Oh, and apparently children should not be allowed to wear clothing, since they could choke on buttons and ribbons and strangle themsevles with a loose thread.

I can think of a few small children who would have been quite happy not to be allowed to wear clothing.

BTW, is it obssessive of me that I wanted to correct the spelling mistake in Cervus' wuote above?

Not at all. I know if a wuote had a spelling mistake it would drive me crazy. Yep nothing worse then a wuote with a spelling mistake. I think we can all agree that a misspelled word will ruin a good wuote quicker then anything.

posted 13. December 200601:23 PM
[WUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Bentley:[WB]Not at all. I know if a wuote had a spelling mistake it would drive me crazy. Yep nothing worse then a wuote with a spelling mistake. I think we can all agree that a misspelled word will ruin a good wuote wuicker then anything.

posted 13. December 200601:48 PM
I just looked at their "Fun in the Sun" link (I was actually thinking they might be recommending some safe toys - how silly of me!).

Evidently you're not supposed to go to playgrounds or amusement parks, stand near a window, or sit in bleachers. Oh, and those soccer goals are dangerous! If you play soccer (which of course you shouldn't, you could sprain your ankle) don't use goals...

posted 13. December 200601:57 PM
One of my favorite Frank Zappa quotes came to mind while reading this thread. This is from his testimony at the "Porn Rock" hearings back in 1985:

quote:The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hawkins.

Senator HAWKINS. Mr. Zappa, you say you have four children?

Mr. ZAPPA. Yes, four children.

Senator HAWKINS. Have you ever purchased toys for those children?

Mr. ZAPPA. No; my wife does.

Senator HAWKINS. Well, I might tell you that if you were to go in a toy store -- which is very educational for fathers, by the way; it is not a maternal responsibility to buy toys for children -- that you may look on the box and the box says, this is suitable for 5 to 7 years of age, or 8 to 15, or 15 and above, to give you some guidance for a toy for a child.

Do you object to that?

Mr. ZAPPA. In a way I do, because that means that somebody in an office someplace is making a decision about how smart my child is.

Senator HAWKINS. I would be interested to see what toys your kids ever had.

quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley:This is only an issue because at some point we've decided that it's the manufacturer's job to tell you the risks of their products that should already obvious in the intended use.

*dot dot dot*

But I'm weird that way. I cannot for the life of me figure out why we demand warnings labels to warn of things which are inherent in the intended use of the product.[/QB]

Because there will always be those who will, in some way shape or form, injure themselves or those in their care. They will not take any responsibility for these injuries. They will blame the company for not warning them about the possible dangers, no matter how obvious they are. My assumption is that the companies do that in order to avoid (even the stupidest of) lawsuits.

Or I could be wrong. The labels might be there because they are the only things that could succesfully cover up mini black holes. Posts: 7 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Cervus: Oh, and apparently children should not be allowed to wear clothing, since they could choke on buttons and ribbons and strangle themsevles with a loose thread.

I can think of a few small children who would have been quite happy not to be allowed to wear clothing.

BTW, is it obssessive of me that I wanted to correct the spelling mistake in Cervus' wuote above?

Not at all. I know if a wuote had a spelling mistake it would drive me crazy. Yep nothing worse then a wuote with a spelling mistake. I think we can all agree that a misspelled word will ruin a good wuote quicker then anything.

Here I got it...

I actually left that one in on purpose for the irony's sake. I did, however, fix "obessive" and "Cewrvus".

Nonny

--------------------When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas SparkhammerPosts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Spamamander in a pear tree:Included will be warnings about the hazards of throwing, rolling, or otherwise mishandling the ball. Colors will be gender-neutral and intellectually stimulating.

Perhaps an advisory not to taunt it should be included as well.

--------------------Heisenberg may have slept here.

I got an idea... an idea so smart my head would explode if I even began to know what I was talking about.Posts: 291 | From: Greenville, SC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted 13. December 200604:08 PM
I'm further skeptical of W.A.T.C.H. after reading further into the page and finding out that its founder was a lawyer who admits on the page to basing his practice on suing toy companies.